In vitro analysis revealed differential enamel damage and elemental loss with hydrogen peroxide bleaching protocols, suggesting varying impacts on enamel integrity.
Background and Objectives: Chairside bleaching can alter enamel morphology and mineral content. This in vitro study compared surface changes and elemental shifts after three in-office protocols using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). Materials and Methods: Forty-two human premolars/molars were sectioned; matched halves served as control or received Opalescence Quick 45% carbamide peroxide (CP), Opalescence Boost 40% hydrogen peroxide (HP), or BlancOne Ultra+ 35% HP with light activation. Gels were applied per manufacturers’ instructions. SEM assessed topography (×500–×1100); EDS quantified atomic percent of O, Ca, P, C and trace elements. One-way ANOVA compared Ca and P between bleached groups (α = 0.05). Results: Controls showed compact surfaces with preserved Ca and P. After Quick, SEM revealed roughness, fissures and microcracks; Ca fell from 11.5 to 12.5 to 9.53–11.73 at% and P from 7.5 to 8.9 to 7.41–8.59 at%. Boost produced mild superficial restructuring and granular deposits with variable Ca 13.80–27.94 at% and P 7.32–14.65 at%. BlancOne Ultra+ caused diffuse erosion and loss of prismatic clarity with marked demineralization (Ca 1.42–7.85 at%, P 1.22–6.71 at%); C rose locally to 46.61 at%. Across bleached groups, Ca and P differed significantly (both p < 0.001). Oxygen remained dominant (~39–50 at%) in all spectra; occasional Al/Si/Cl/K likely reflected residues or preparation artifacts. Conclusions: All protocols produced surface and compositional alterations, with a severity gradient: BlancOne Ultra+ > Boost > Quick. High-concentration, light-activated HP yielded the largest Ca/P losses. Clinically, neutral-pH, non-activated or chemically activated regimens and immediate post-bleach remineralization should ideally be used when feasible, particularly before adhesive procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Buzatu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: